I hope to have more to say about this later this weekend, but I want to make a quick comment about the Republican's announced intentions to investigate Attorney General designate Eric Holder, as reported on in The Hill, and commented on by Digby. The Hill reports:
Senate Republicans have requested information about Attorney General nominee Eric Holder's role in the Elian Gonzalez controversy as part of a broad probe into his tenure with the Clinton administration and potential ties to presidential scandals during that era. [Emphasis added.]
I've already stated my misgivings about Holder, but I'm the kind of guy who learned to walk and chew gum back in grade school, and the habit is still with me. So, just a couple of quick questions:
(1) Aren't some of the things they're asking for normally considered legal work product?
(2) Aren't presidential advisors supposed to be able to offer advice freely, without the prospect of Congressional or other outside investigations that would chill their free expression of ideas?
(3) Didn't the Bush Administration and it's defenders in Congress and the media make these arguments over and over and over again when it came to all sorts of questionable conduct, involving criminal matters such as the outing of Victoria Plame, the cooking of intelligence, the planning and execution of illegal wiretaps, illegal detention and torture?
(4) And, aren't these sorts of considerations under #2 and #3 at least modestly relevant when there is absolutely no hint of an underlying criminal act? Particularly in contrast to all the criminal activity that was shielded during the Bush Administration?
(5) Finally, given that there isn't any sort of indication of any sort of criminal activity, isn't this what's commonly known as a fishing expedition? And wasn't that pretty much the dominant theme of GOP politics during the Clinton Era?
Inquiring minds want to know!
|
STATE BLOGS
