Holder forgot about supporting terrorists to Supremes
This one is just simply BS.
During his confirmation more than a year ago, Attorney General Eric Holder failed to notify lawmakers he had contributed to a legal brief dealing with the use of federal courts in fighting terrorism, the Justice Department acknowledged on Wednesday.
“The brief should have been disclosed as part of the confirmation process,” Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller said in a statement. “In preparing thousands of pages for submission, it was unfortunately and inadvertently missed.”
You lie sir. I know Holder worked for a cool law firm and all that, but you can’t convince me that writing a brief to be presented to the Supreme Court about terrorists was just another couple of pro bono hours for him. His brief also makes the quite important point that all of the legal rights annointing he wants to do definitely jeopardize our security, but hey it’s worth it because terrorists are people too.
“It may be true that in some cases the government will not be able to obtain information from citizens who are informed of their right to counsel, or that obtaining that information may be delayed,” the brief said, noting that a lower federal court characterized such a scenario as speculative. “But this is an inherent consequence of the limitation of Executive power. No doubt many other steps could be taken that would increase our security, and could enable us to prevent terrorist attacks that might otherwise occur. But our Nation has always been prepared to accept some risk as the price of guaranteeing that the Executive does not have arbitrary power to imprison citizens.”
Shocking he didn’t want that discussed during his confirmation hearings.
Tags: Bold-faced Lies, holder, terrorism
Who cares if it was “just pro-bono hours”? It was for a case before SCOTUS.
This is really starting to transcend Tom Clancy scary and get to really, REALLY scary…
This keeps getting better and better.
I knew that when Sen. Grassley asked the Attorney General, Eric Holder, to identify recently hired DOJ lawyers who previously represented or advocated for terror suspects, that the Senator asking the question had somebody specific in mind. The identity of a lawyer representing any client in any court is a public matter. The failure to disclose such representation, of course, is an embarrassing error because it speaks of carelessness and lack of serious regard for ethical niceties.
The only reason to ask that question was to prod the office on its policy about recusals: that is, situations where a government lawyer is ethically required to avoid influencing a matter because he’d been involved with it before he took his new job.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/22/on-terrorists-justice-recused/
Depriving the other side of their chosen counsel also a fun and expensive game played gleefully by all the law firms that advertise themselves as “sophisticated counsel.” So this is just choice.
Barack Obama’s nominee for the office of Attorney General of the United States “forgot” that he billed time on the Padilla case. Covington & Burling is a very large firm, and they must be so comforted to know how they look to the rest of the sharks in the tank.
I’m going to be very tempted to do the lawyer’s version of the dead tango dance when this inept attorney finally leaves high public office.
I knew Sen. Grassley had somebody specific in mind when he demanded the list of names of new DOJ attorneys that had represented terrorists. The information as to who has represented a clients is always public, if moderately difficult for the layman to track. And, it’s a safe bet that all former opposing counsel know how to use a phone. If a lawyer fails to recuse himself, opposing counsel are sure to bring it up. It’s also embarrassing, because the lawyer forcibly dropped from a matter looks careless and ethically limited.
The big, sophisticated firms gleefully play the game of depriving the opposite side of their chosen counsel. So right now, the rest of the sharks in the tank are grinning at the good folk of Covington and Burling.
OK, I was trying to be careful. Everything seemed normal, but the first post didn’t pop up, so I left, and this is the first time I’ve seen it. That was a solid three days ago.