Political stooge Eric Holder’s latest poke in our collective eyes comes from his role in Operation Fast and Furious.
Representative Darrell Issa and Senator Charles Grassley have accused Holder of blocking their investigation of the scandalous operation that resulted in the deaths of two US agents and many Mexican civilians.
Please see Michael Walsh’s piece.
Fast and Furious was designed as an ATF sting and involved the “transfer” of thousands of weapons from gun shops in Arizona to Mexican drug cartels in an effort to track those guns back across the border. Predictably those weapons were used by the Mexican drug lords in scores of killings.
As Walsh points out, many lawful gun owners believe this ill conceived plan was hatched and implemented by Holder’s ATF to “prove” the Obama Administration’s contention that 90% of the guns Mexican Cartels use originate in the United States. This “proof” would provide the administration with the political cover it would need to further control guns by executive order.
If this scenario involving Holder providing political cover sounds familiar, it should. Once again Holder is a willing stooge to his political masters.
Holder provided Bill Clinton with the political cover he needed to offer clemency in 1999 to 16 unrepentant FALN and Macheteros terrorists. When Pardon Attorney, Roger Adams refused to reverse his predecessor Margaret Love’s recommendation against the clemency offers in 1998, Holder concocted an “options report” for Adams to deliver to Holder in which Adams would not be required to provide any recommendation for or against clemency.
The existence of that new report allowed Clinton the wiggle room to justify his clemency to terrorists who had not even requested clemency, who did not show remorse but whose supporters met with Holder and his team at least 9 times. Holder and his team ignored the families of those killed while pandering to the terrorists and their supporters.
Like he did in 1999 by pushing the release of those terrorists, Holder is once again playing Russian roulette with the American People; this time by furnishing guns to gangsters in a reckless attempt to provide political cover to his superior(s).
Like he did in 1999, Holder now refuses to answer questions regarding his or his boss’s involvement in the scandal and is even holding up a congressional investigation.
In testifying against Holder at his Senate confirmation hearing in 2009 I got it right in writing. “Holder lacks the judgment, character, and honesty and belief system necessary for such a vital position in today’s world.” He should never have been nominated much less confirmed as Attorney General.
It did not take Nostradamus to predict what Holder would do as Attorney General. A simple reading of his history would provide insight into his future.
Just last week I participated in a conference sponsored by America’s Survival (http://www.usasurvival.org/ck07.02.2011.html) focusing on Holder and his malfeasance. Please see Jim Simpson’s attached piece on the conference.
Aside from Fast and Furious, since becoming AG, Holder’s other recent travesties of justice are well documented and include his:
1. failure to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation
2. desire to prosecute members of the intelligence community over terror interrogations
3. goals of closing the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention center and trying foreign terrorists in civilian courts
Holder’s previous misdeeds are so numerous and insidious that they are difficult to identify and summarize. Investigative Reporter Ron Kolb, for the America’s Survival conference last week, provided the best brief I have ever seen on Mr. Holder. Please see Holder’s bullets below.
Look, Holder must go. I don’t know how much more evidence we need; how many more misdeeds Holder has to perpetrate, how many more Americans have to be put at risk, how many more Fast and Furious scandals we have to endure.
The American people are Furious so Holder has to go Fast.
For the record, Holder’s bullets.
On the Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN:
• After Holder became Deputy Attorney General in 1997, he fired then current Pardon Attorney Margaret Colgate Love, who had issued a report in 1996 recommending against clemency for the FALN and Macheteros.
• Holder installed Roger Adams (who had been a former assistant to Holder at the US Attorney’s office) as the new Pardon Attorney. During 1997 and 1998 Holder met at least nine times with advocates for clemency–never meeting with victims of the FALN’s actions.
• In a meeting on November 5, 1997 Holder came up with the idea that the terrorists should express “remorse” for their actions, in an apparent attempt to make clemency seem more palatable to the public (this alternative was later rejected by the terrorists in 1999).
• Holder continued to pressure Roger Adams to issue a report recommending clemency. Adams refused to do so because: the prosecutors and the FBI would object; it would hamper investigations into co-conspirators who were still at large; victims of the FALN had not been notified; and the issuance of clemency could cause a public uproar.
• A compromise was reached, where an “options report” was issued by Adams that made no specific recommendation. This accomplished the following: the new report did not technically override the Love report from 1996; Roger Adams would not be required to recommend clemency; and the existence of the new report would pave the way for President Clinton to issue clemency.
• In early 1999, after Hillary Clinton expressed interest in seeking the U.S. Senate seat from the state of New York (where 1.3 million Puerto Rican voters reside), White House staff began movement on the pardons.
• Holder and Adams forwarded the “options report” to the White House on July 8, 1999. On August 9, Mrs. Clinton met with advocates for clemency. Jose Rivera, a New York City councilman gave Mrs. Clinton documents relating to clemency, and asked that they be given to her husband.
• On August 11, Mr. Clinton offered clemency to 16 members of the FALN and Macheteros.
• Despite clemency being an individual grant, Holder and the DoJ allowed the terrorists conference calls between prisons to decide whether to accept the clemencies. It took the terrorists 30 days to accept the offers; after which 14 of the 16 FALN were released from various Federal prisons on September 10, 1999.
• During subsequent Senate testimony, Holder refused to answer most questions, claiming executive privilege. He refused to discuss the Love report from 1996, and also stated that a September 1999 report from Janet Reno recommending against the “impending release” of Puerto Rican terrorists was not referring to the 16 who were offered clemency.
• During Holder’s Senate testimony in 2009, he admitted that he had recommended clemency for the FALN to Mr. Clinton. He also claimed to not know that many of the group’s members had threatened their trial judge just prior to sentencing, and was unaware that two FALN members were caught on tape making bombs. He also claimed that he knew enough about the group to recommend clemency.
On the Weather Underground:
• In Holder’s written answers to Senator Sessions, Holder said that the DOJ had recommended against clemency for both Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans.
• Holder added that he forwarded the negative finding on Rosenberg to the White House without his signature.
• He then added that he forwarded the negative finding on Linda Evans to the White House, this time with his signature.
• In his written answers to Senator Specter though, he said that he may have forwarded both findings to the White House without his signature.
• By not taking an active stance in supporting the negative findings for both Rosenberg and Evans by the DOJ, Holder was effectively allowing pardons to be issued to both women..
On Marc Rich:
• Holder was first approached by Jack Quinn (Marc Rich’s attorney) in October 1999 and had several contacts with Quinn about the case until January of 2001–a period of 15 months. Holder would later state at least three times before Congress that he had only a passing familiarity with the case.
• During the period of October of 1999 to March 2000, Holder tried to broker a deal with Federal prosecutors that would cause the charges against Mr. Rich to be dropped. Holder also received a memo on February 28 from Quinn on why the charges against Rich should be dismissed. The prosecutors issued a total rejection of any deal.
• In November of 2000, Holder was approached again by Quinn, this time in an attempt to obtain a pardon. Holder advised Quinn to contact the White House, and that they should contact him (Holder). This was against the normal procedure, and bypassed the prosecutors (who had previously rejected any deal) and also bypassed the Pardon Attorney’s office.
• On January 19, 2001, Holder told the White House that he was “neutral, leaning favorable” toward a pardon for Rich, even after later admitting that he knew that Rich was a fugitive–and had assumed that a pardon would be rejected. He said he based his recommendation on a statement of support from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak–after hearing of it third-hand from Quinn only moments before.
• Later that evening, Roger Adams learned that both Rich and his business partner Pincus Green were fugitives, and early on the morning of January 20 tracked down Holder at his home to “alert” him of the impending pardons. Holder informed Adams that he was aware of that fact and the conversation quickly ended.
• After the pardons were issued by Mr. Clinton, Quinn contacted then acting Attorney General Holder on the 22nd. After complimenting Quinn on being able to obtain the pardons, Holder advised Quinn on how deal with the media over the issue, and ran down a laundry list for making life easier for Mr. Rich. This included taking actions to have the Interpol Red Alert lifted and contacting the court in Manhattan to have the charges removed.
• Holder then asked Quinn if he could fax resumes for two of his deputies to Quinn’s law office (which he subsequently did). He later admitted to Congress that he had earlier spoken to Quinn about becoming Attorney General in a potential Gore administration. Holder had also told the Washington Post that he hoped Quinn might help him in that effort.
• During his Senate testimony in 2009, his memory often failed him. Holder would also make statements about his involvement that are contradicted by the known record. He still claimed that he had been unfamiliar with Rich and Rich’s case even after being petitioned repeatedly by Jack Quinn between 1999 and 2001. and maintained that claim even after the Clarendon settlement with Rich in 1995 had been revealed.
On the Clarendon limited settlement:
• The Clarendon settlement involved an agreement between that company and the U.S. government to pay 1.2 million dollars in fines for 22 contracts they had received totaling 45 million dollars between 1988 and 1991. Clarendon had been contracted by the Treasury to supply coinage metals to the U.S. Mint, and they had neglected to mention that Marc Rich owned half the company.
• Mr. Rich was a federal fugitive at the time, and was barred from receiving federal contracts. The government threatened to prosecute the company and Holder’s office negotiated the settlement. The Wall Street Journal quoted then DC U.S. Attorney Holder announcing the agreement in an article on April 13, 1995.
• The agreement had been announced on April 12, and the settlement included Holder’s signature in three different places, and also included an affidavit from Marc Rich that he had signed in St. Moritz on April 6. The affidavit included a raised notary stamp, and in addition, the settlement also described Rich’s indictment in 1983 and noted that he was then currently a fugitive.
• The Assistant U.S. Attorney, Barbara Van Gelder also signed the document. She would eventually say that she signed the document for Holder, had spoken to others about the case in Holder’s office, but could not “recall” speaking with Holder.
• However, it appears that there are no similarities between the two signatures. It should also be noted that this case was a significant one, and had been ongoing since the government discovered the fraudulent contracts in 1990, and that the case involved 45 million in fraud charges and a settlement of over a million dollars.
• It should further be noted that Van Gelder is a political ally of Holder; both have donated to many of the same politicians and causes, including the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. She also contacted the AP last November to endorse Holder the same day that his name had first leaked.
• It should also be noted that during Holder’s 2009 Senate testimony, he said of Rich that, “I did not acquaint myself with his record. I knew that the matter involved–it was a tax fraud case–it was a substantial tax fraud case, and I knew he was a fugitive.” Holder’s statement shows that he was fully aware of the Clarendon case.
• Holder stated at least six times before Congress in 2001 that he was unfamiliar with Mr. Rich when he was first approached by Jack Quinn. It should be noted that if Mr. Holder was unfamiliar with Rich in 1999, he certainly knew the details of Rich’s 1983 indictment after repeated discussions over a 15-month period with Quinn–and he denied being familiar with the case in both his 2001 and 2009 Congressional testimony.
On the Chiquita Brands scandal:
• Holder, as a member of the Covington and Burling law firm, obtained a plea deal in 2007 for Chiquita Brands International–and helped ten executives and employees escape prosecution for paying “protection” money to the Colombian paramilitary group AUC (United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia).
• The AUC is also known as Colombia’s “death squad” and Chiquita’s payments totaled 1.7 million between 1997 and 2004. During those years, the AUC killed 4000 people, and there are no confirmed reports that any Chiquita employees had been directly targeted, as Chiquita implied.
• By choosing to take that case, Holder helped ten people who had aided and abetted a terrorist group that had killed thousands avoid prosecution. The company pleaded guilty and received a 25 million dollar fine.
• Holder would later argue in a civil settlement that there’s no law against material support of terrorism, and effectively, in the definition of terrorism